[rfc-i] Comments in the canonical RFCs
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Thu May 8 11:38:22 PDT 2014
On 5/8/14 1:44 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 8, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Maybe this was discussed before, but why are XML comments forbidden in the canonical format?
> They could easily make the semantics of the RFC really horrible.
> <t>The client MUST abort if it sees this signal.
> <!-- Paul Kyzivat showed where this might not always be a good idea, but the WG
> had already lost steam and let it go. -->
I don't see any problem in having a comment like that remain.
It doesn't change the semantics of anything. But it does provide some
insight that might be useful if/when a bis effort begins. And it might
be even more useful if somebody is "borrowing" some xml from this rfc
while working on something similar.
>> I often use comments to provide info of relevance to those editing the document. While these may become less useful when the document becomes an RFC, they could be useful again in the future if a bis version of the RFC is to be generated.
> Specific examples would be useful here.
I'd have to spend more time searching than I really want to invest right
In any case, right now there isn't xml available for RFCs. My xml for
drafts is often laced with comments to myself or other authors. Most of
them can probably be stripped as the thing gets close to completion. I
can just imaging that some might be worthwhile to keep.
I would expect that when editing is being done to turn the draft into an
rfc the editor will have discretion whether to retain comments or remove
them. I was only objecting to making that removal mandatory.
More information about the rfc-interest